A total gun ban just isn't going to happen in America. But just to pretend everything is okay because kids die other ways is not realistically addressing the problem. It is a slap in the face of reason.

Actually, pretending that passing more laws will stop school shootings is a a slap in the face of reason. Liberal politicians are using this as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do before. Make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to own and shoot the guns that they want to own and shoot. All the while pretending the 2nd amendment is in place for hunting. None of the so-called solutions that they are presenting would have prevented this tragedy.

If they really wanted to find a way to reduce these type of shootings they would be looking at mental illness and the anti-depressants that are being fed to children by the truckload. Perhaps study the effect of kids playing 3000 hours of first person shooter games on X-Box. The reason these shootings are becoming more common is because our society is crumbling and liberalism is at the very heart of that in my opinion.

what polls do you have to support your assertion that ppl are against armed guards at schools?

you are dumb right?

Lifeguards are put in place to protect children from drowning b/c of the enormously high death rate in children from drowning.

Yet you dont want ppl in place to protect children given the miniscule amount of deaths at schools?

why is that?

The group's position on more cops in schools is actually backed up by the public: Only 41% support a National Rifle Association proposal to put armed officers in schools; 50% oppose it, according to a Public Policy Polling survey released this week.

The group's position on more cops in schools is actually backed up by the public: Only 41% support a National Rifle Association proposal to put armed officers in schools; 50% oppose it, according to a Public Policy Polling survey released this week.

link please, thats all fine and dandy they dont necissarily have to be armed with a gun.

Actually, pretending that passing more laws will stop school shootings is a a slap in the face of reason. Liberal politicians are using this as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do before. Make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to own and shoot the guns that they want to own and shoot. All the while pretending the 2nd amendment is in place for hunting. None of the so-called solutions that they are presenting would have prevented this tragedy.

If they really wanted to find a way to reduce these type of shootings they would be looking at mental illness and the anti-depressants that are being fed to children by the truckload. Perhaps study the effect of kids playing 3000 hours of first person shooter games on X-Box. The reason these shootings are becoming more common is because our society is crumbling and liberalism is at the very heart of that in my opinion.

Actually, pretending that passing more laws will stop school shootings is a a slap in the face of reason. Liberal politicians are using this as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do before. Make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to own and shoot the guns that they want to own and shoot. All the while pretending the 2nd amendment is in place for hunting. None of the so-called solutions that they are presenting would have prevented this tragedy.

If they really wanted to find a way to reduce these type of shootings they would be looking at mental illness and the anti-depressants that are being fed to children by the truckload. Perhaps study the effect of kids playing 3000 hours of first person shooter games on X-Box. The reason these shootings are becoming more common is because our society is crumbling and liberalism is at the very heart of that in my opinion.

I didn't say that. All I said is that if they really want to stop these shootings they should look at what might be the root cause. At no point did I say what they should do about it. Just like a liberal, you cant refute what I said so you try to put words in my mouth and move the debate on to another topic.

I didn't say that. All I said is that if they really want to stop these shootings they should look at what might be the root cause. At no point did I say what they should do about it. Just like a liberal, you cant refute what I said so you try to put words in my mouth and move the debate on to another topic.

this is exactly my point. Anytime anyone even hints at doing something about guns, people go nuts. No rational argument is even allowed. More and more death threat youtube vids appear.

I'll take a page from your book and froth at the mouth at a mere mention.

However, I'm not surprised u can't see the irony. It's hard to notice such things when you're in a rage.

this is exactly my point. Anytime anyone even hints at doing something about guns, people go nuts. No rational argument is even allowed. More and more death threat youtube vids appear.

I'll take a page from your book and froth at the mouth at a mere mention.

However, I'm not surprised u can't see the irony. It's hard to notice such things when you're in a rage.

I've yet to see you make a rational arguement for gun control so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Right out of the liberal playbook you talk about how angry republicans are. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm "in a rage" or "frothing at the mouth". It's true some republicans have come off like angry nuts but I have not.

Speaking of angry nuts, how do you think liberals would react if Romney got elected and started threatening to use and executive order to ban abortion? They would lose their minds. It would be utter hysteria. How receptive are liberals to rational arguements for banning abortion? Exactly.

I've yet to see you make a rational arguement for gun control so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Right out of the liberal playbook you talk about how angry republicans are. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm "in a rage" or "frothing at the mouth". It's true some republicans have come off like angry nuts but I have not.

Speaking of angry nuts, how do you think liberals would react if Romney got elected and started threatening to use and executive order to ban abortion? They would lose their minds. It would be utter hysteria. How receptive are liberals to rational arguements for banning abortion? Exactly.

Imagine if Romney won and said I am for banning abortion and I want common sense laws enacted and hope the liberals meet me half way.

this is exactly my point. Anytime anyone even hints at doing something about guns, people go nuts. No rational argument is even allowed. More and more death threat youtube vids appear.

I'll take a page from your book and froth at the mouth at a mere mention.

However, I'm not surprised u can't see the irony. It's hard to notice such things when you're in a rage.

There are relatively intelligent people who are amenable to rational argument on either side of the aisle, but they tend to be at the upper echelons of power or a part of auxiliary structures, e.g., think tanks that analyze and propose policy. (Unfortunately, it's still the case that an increasing amount of such elites are polarized, partisan types.)

It isn't reasonable to expect the general population to be calm, rational, and amenable to relatively emotion-free discourse. I think the ability to hold sophisticated, productive conversations about such issues requires training and a level of knowledge not accessible to most of the population (generally speaking, a college education seems necessary, something only one-fourth of the nation receives). And this is what we'd expect, really: our lowly origins as half-evolved apes makes the possibility of such discourse a wonder in itself; not understanding the complex causal chains of economic policy, as a random example, is nothing to be ashamed of (arguably, not even the experts understand).

The only problem with the way things are is that apparently, elites need to use emotional appeals to convince a population that make-believes it understands the issues. Will further education make policy debates more accessible, or will elites need to keep leading most people on?